Talk:Paddington Tom Jones

Multiple corrections to content of article, adding better sources, etc.

I made several changes to the article, mostly adding better sources and correcting factual errors…

The most significant change was to remove the various mentions that used to be in this article saying that Paddington Jones vs Jem Belcher was a fight for the Championship of England. There is no contemporary evidence to back up this claim. It is an invention of the poorly sourced website ‘cyberboxingzone’, which is full of anachronistic references to weight classes which didn’t exist in prizefighting days and makes frequent unsupported claims that various fights were for the championship in the absence of contemporary evidence. (Often they seem to be trying to fill periods when there was no established champion, essentially by proclaiming one themselves 200 years later, although why anyone would think that was a worthwhile exercise doesn't seem entirely clear).

I’ve removed the many citations to the ‘cyberboxingzone’ and ‘boxrec’ websites and instead cited the original sources for the information in this article (the near contemporary sources Pancratia, 1812, and Boxiana, volume 1, 1830, and the most authoritative compilation of early contemporary material, Pugilistica, volume 1, 1906. I’ve also added these as External Sources at the foot of the article so that any interested parties can check the actual contemporary evidence for themselves.

Unfortunately the article seemed to be affected quite badly by poor quality sources. E.g. frequent reference was also made to the magazine ‘Famous Fights Past & Present, 1904’ which was essentially a penny dreadful dedicated to publishing long and imagined descriptions of fights for which very little information actually existed. I’m not sure that there is really any merit in using it as a source when we could easily use references to the actual contemporary accounts.

There was a large amount of ‘colour text’ in the article which presumably derived from the imaginations of the ‘Famous Fights’ staff, as the details described often couldn’t be located in the contemporary sources.

Similarly there used to be frequent reference to material contained in the ‘Today in Pugilistic Annals’ sections of the Altoona Times (PA) and The Gazette Cedar Rapids (IA), both from around the time of WWI. I’ve not read the relevant columns, but this seems once again to be a rather unusual choice of reference sources when the original first-hand contemporary accounts of Jones’ fights are easily accessible online. I’ve therefore removed reference to ‘Famous Fights’ and the 2 newspapers mentioned above and inserted page references to Pancratia, Boxiana and Pugilistica. Also included several extended quotes from the original contemporary fight reports.

Jones was described in the article here as a welterweight. At the time that Jones was fighting he was considered a light weight. The concept of welterweight did not enter boxing until about 1896 (see Wikipedia page on Welterweight). I have therefore made some minor changes to reflect this situation.

Re: the claim that used to be in this article that ‘most of [Jones’] fights went unreported in the larger London area newspapers of the period’, I’m not sure how that can really be supported – as clearly his fights are documented relatively well in, say, Pancratia 1812 and Boxiana 1823-30, and other early boxing sources, which suggests that contemporary accounts had originally been published somewhere. Accounts of prizefights were frequently published in newspapers of the period (some of which no longer exist in archives) and a very extensive search would be required to demonstrate that ‘most of [Paddington Jones’] fights went unreported’. I’ve therefore removed the claim from the article.

I also removed several references in the text to how well publicised various of Jones’ individual fights were in newspapers at the time (e.g ‘In a slightly better publicized match’ etc). I think we have to be realistic here and say that, without specific evidence, we simply do not know which of his fights were or were not mentioned in contemporary newspapers, or which were ‘slightly better publicized’ than others.

There seemed to be an error in the article re: Paddington Jones’ birthplace. This used to say Montgomeryshire, Wales, citing Pugilistica as a source. However, Pugilistica and Boxiana are both united in saying ‘About the year 1766, Paddington [London] gave birth to this hero’. I've changed this accordingly. It doesn't seem that his birthdate is recorded in either source, so I've changed it to simply 1766.

Also clarified the location of Smitham Bottom (Coulsdon, South London), removed reference to Isaac Bitton being a ‘Scott’ (he was a Jew of Dutch extraction, the Wikipedia page for him says he was born in Amsterdam), removed reference to Jones’ position as master of ceremonies for exhibition fights having led to his role as a second (surely, if anything, it was the other way round, but Jones was just one of many people circulating on the scene, and pretty much all boxers were also working as seconds at this time, albeit that Jones was more prolific than others in that regard).

Regarding the comment ‘Norwich’s Norwood Common, wooded area in South east London’. Norwich is a completely different city to London, located about 100m to the northeast. The site of this fight cannot be both in Norwich and in Southeast London. Boxiana records that before the fight Nicholls arrived in London, so presumably the reference in this article to Norwich was in error. I removed mention of Norwich.

Removed reference to the Paddington area being ‘at the time a very poor section of London’s West End’. There were a number of very grand houses in that area and it would have been very much on the outskirts of London at the time Jones was alive.

Removed reference to a fight vs ‘Jack Holmes’ which would appear to be a duplicate for Jones’ second bout vs Ned Holmes.

Removed multiple references to the ‘significant’ and ‘considerable’ size of various to the stakes/purses in Jones’ fights. The size of the stakes in Jones’s fights were perfectly normal for fights of the era, but I don’t think any of them would be described as either considerable or significant. At this point in time, 100 to 200 guineas a side would have been really good, whereas Jones never fought for more than £50 (usually for far less).

Removed reference to the fight vs Challice, which was an impromptu fight fought well away from London (in front of some farmers) and certainly wasn’t one of Jones’s major fights.

I’ve removed a comment (in the section re: the fight vs Belcher) that at the time Jones ‘had yet to be defeated in any of his matches’. This is untrue as he had already lost to (at least) Ned Holmes and Tom Tyne.

Removed a reference to one of Jones’ last fights (in 1805) being vs Keely Lyons. Pugilistica p119 makes it clear that it was a different boxer with the same surname.

Presumably a lot of the issues above were caused by material being lifted from 'Famous Fights', etc.

Rearranged the order of some of the fights in the narrative, which had not been placed in chronological order. Also, the selection of career ‘highlights’ in the various sections of the article seems rather arbitrary. Many of them are fights for which no more than a few lines can be found in the contemporary sources and are against fighters who are often otherwise completely unknown. I do wonder if the length of the article could be rather reduced, and the content made more readable – say by including a comprehensive list of Jones’s fights, dates, results, etc, at the foot of the article and only including details of fights vs significant opponents where contemporary info exists re: the details of the fights. (There’s only so much that one can say in terms of ‘Then Jones fought so-and-so at location X for stakes of £y and won easily in 10 rounds lasting 17 minute. Then Jones fought someone else at location Z, etc, etc’ before it all begins to get a bit samey and pointless. The place for this sort of thing is really in a separate list.)

Also reduced the number of examples in the list of occasions when Jones acted as second. Just a few decent high-profile examples is hopefully sufficient, given that the text already has a quote saying that he worked as a second more frequently than anybody else.

Removed reference to Jones having been present at a ‘modestly attended’ boxing exhibition by Mendoza, not sufficiently notable.

Added an extended quote from Boxiana on Jones’ style of boxing.

To be honest, I think the article is far too long when compared to Jones' actual notability as a boxer (he only ever fought a few opponents of any real note). I'd have preferred to have cut the length by about 50%, but limited myself to just adding better sources, incorporating contemporary quotes into the text and correcting some of the errors. Axad12 (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Minor change

I added an early description of the fight between Jones and Bitton (sourced from Pancratia, 1812).

Also removed the reference I had added earlier today to Jones vs Tyne. Pugilistica (vol 1, p115) states that the Jones involved in that fight was Bill Jones, not Tom Jones. My mistake. Axad12 (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Table of fights

I've extended the table of 'Selected Bouts' at the foot of the article to include all Paddington Jones bouts mentioned in either Fistiana, Boxiana or Pugilistica. So, the table is now about as complete as can be.

With that in place I'm now thinking that it may be worthwhile to remove some of the details of relatively minor fights from the main text of the article - so that it reads better and concentrates on the more notable fights for which details are known beyond just the date, duration, stakes and result.

Any thoughts? Axad12 (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Info regarding Jones vs Belcher not being for the chamionship

In an earlier note I mentioned that Jones vs Belcher was not for the championship (and that there was a complete absence of contemporary evidence to support the claim that it was for the championship). I thought it might be useful to provide some background info here...

At the time that this fight occurred, 1799, Belcher had recently arrived in London for the first time and was only 18 or 19 years old. He had impressed in a sparring exhibition and was matched in his first London prizefight against Paddington Jones, who was a lightweight about 2 stone lighter than Belcher. Jones was about 30 years old and was what would these days be referred to as a journeyman. Pugilistica states (vol 1, p117) that Jones 'was the man selected to have a trial set-to with [Belcher]'.

Pancratia, 1812, is a very valuable contemporary source on early boxing (available online at archive.org). The subtitle of the book is 'A history of Pugilism, containing a full account of every battle of note' - and indeed it does cover in considerable detail the various championship bouts fought by recognised champions such as Tom Johnson, Ben Brain, Daniel Mendoza, John Jackson and Jem Belcher, and a large number of other notable fights are also described. However, the Belcher-Jones bout is not mentioned at all, despite having taken place only 13 years before the book was published. From this it is clear that not only was the fight not for the championship, but it wasn't even considered notable enough to warrant inclusion in Pancratia.

The accurate situation regarding the location of the English championship in 1799 is that John Jackson had won it in 1795 by defeating the previous champion Daniel Mendoza. Since then, Jackson had been without a challenger and it isn't entirely clear when he had decided to retire/vacate the title (at this point in time boxers did not have to formally vacate, as there were no governing bodies). However, as late as 1800 Mendoza was still trying to secure a rematch vs Jackson, which Jackson declined because he said that by that time he had retired (the first time that he seems to have made any comment on the matter).

When Belcher arrived in London in 1798, if the title had been known to be vacant, and if it was decided that Belcher was a good enough man to fight for it, it would have been very odd for him to have faced a journeyman lightweight in that bout (who, to be honest, had never beaten anybody of genuine note). Surely Belcher would have been matched against a genuine contender such as former champion Mendoza, or Bill Warr (who Mendoza had beaten twice in championship bouts).

Alternatively we could look at the issue from the standpoint of the size of the stakes. The stakes for the Jones-Belcher bout are known to have been 25 guineas a side - i.e. a fairly low figure at that time. 25 guineas would have been tiny compared to the stakes in fights which are generally accepted as having been for the championship, for example: Johnson vs Ryan (1789, 300 guineas a side), Brian vs Johnson (1791, 500 guineas a side), Mendoza vs Warr (1792, 200 guineas vs 300 guineas), Jackson vs Mendoza (1795, 200 guineas a side), etc.

Hopefully the above notes serve to clarify the various reasons why Belcher vs Jones was obviously not a championship fight. Incidentally, this is not 'independent research' on my part, it is the clear consensus position represented by all of the contemporary sources. Axad12 (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)